The statement from the DFCSG makes no mention of this being any kind of oversight or mistake. No apology again. They state that every effort was made by the directors to explore alternative options and the club have been in discussion with the league for some time. The error was clealy discovered a while ago?

They then go on to pass the buck by saying that the board inherited a situation where the move to BM was incorrectly costed. DFCSG appear to have been very happy with the previous board who undercosted. It's not my fault, it's the guy before me.

They also state that every possible penny of the operating income has been provided to support the playing budget. If funds were to be diverted to employ full time directors or club secretary, e.g. a secretary would be in the region of £30k, this would restrict the playing budget significantly.

Yes, it would, but why mention the idea of employing a full-time director unless you are aware the current ones haven't done their job properly.

Neither of these statements show any contrition at the moment. Blaming everyone else and everything else. I think they've badly misjudged the current mood. I'm seriously not sure whether I trust these people with my money anymore.

Go on then. Put yourself forward for a position on the board. Put your head above the parapet, like the current encumbents have done, and stand.

And God help you when you make a cock up.

Firstly, I live 200 miles away from the town. Secondly, if I was responsible for a cock up like that I'd resign.

I'm sure the board want to make a public apology but just imagine if they did before the appeal is heard. It could well be read as an admission of guilt and a Blyth fan with a vendetta about the Bell incident last year would forward it straight to the FA. I'm sure someone will apologise in time but now is not the moment.

Not convinced anything matters on the appeal.

I don't see any real grounds, other than please feel sorry for us we read the wrong rules and then when we found out we didn't have enough time or money to do anything.

Unless the League are feeling really nice then I can't see any reason to let us play.

Absolutely no hope with the appeal, when we tell them we didnt notice the May 2016 rule amendment, the FA will say "what rule amendment?".

This rule was in the 2015 document as well, so on what grounds are we making an appeal?!

The statement from the DFCSG makes no mention of this being any kind of oversight or mistake. No apology again. They state that every effort was made by the directors to explore alternative options and the club have been in discussion with the league for some time. The error was clealy discovered a while ago?

They then go on to pass the buck by saying that the board inherited a situation where the move to BM was incorrectly costed. DFCSG appear to have been very happy with the previous board who undercosted. It's not my fault, it's the guy before me.

They also state that every possible penny of the operating income has been provided to support the playing budget. If funds were to be diverted to employ full time directors or club secretary, e.g. a secretary would be in the region of £30k, this would restrict the playing budget significantly.

Yes, it would, but why mention the idea of employing a full-time director unless you are aware the current ones haven't done their job properly.

Neither of these statements show any contrition at the moment. Blaming everyone else and everything else. I think they've badly misjudged the current mood. I'm seriously not sure whether I trust these people with my money anymore.

Go on then. Put yourself forward for a position on the board. Put your head above the parapet, like the current encumbents have done, and stand.

And God help you when you make a cock up.

Firstly, I live 200 miles away from the town. Secondly, if I was responsible for a cock up like that I'd resign.

The statement from the DFCSG makes no mention of this being any kind of oversight or mistake. No apology again. They state that every effort was made by the directors to explore alternative options and the club have been in discussion with the league for some time. The error was clealy discovered a while ago?

They then go on to pass the buck by saying that the board inherited a situation where the move to BM was incorrectly costed. DFCSG appear to have been very happy with the previous board who undercosted. It's not my fault, it's the guy before me.

They also state that every possible penny of the operating income has been provided to support the playing budget. If funds were to be diverted to employ full time directors or club secretary, e.g. a secretary would be in the region of £30k, this would restrict the playing budget significantly.

Yes, it would, but why mention the idea of employing a full-time director unless you are aware the current ones haven't done their job properly.

Neither of these statements show any contrition at the moment. Blaming everyone else and everything else. I think they've badly misjudged the current mood. I'm seriously not sure whether I trust these people with my money anymore.

Go on then. Put yourself forward for a position on the board. Put your head above the parapet, like the current encumbents have done, and stand.

And God help you when you make a cock up.

Firstly, I live 200 miles away from the town. Secondly, if I was responsible for a cock up like that I'd resign.

So, we lose the appeal and our board resigns en masse.

Who runs the club during the close season?

Who gives Gray his budget for next season with nobody in charge?

Think it through.

Well done on putting words in someone else's mouth.

So, we lose the appeal and without showing any contrition and blaming everyone but themselves, the current board then ask for a six-figure sum for ground improvements.

How do we expect to hit that figure when clearly a significant proportion of the fan base doesn't have any trust in them?

Here's an interesting (albeit unlikely) scenario ...... Darlo win all remaining 4 matches and have a mathematical possibility of finishing as champions, depending on results from other teams in the top 7. Promoted or not?

No - 500 seats is needed to be eligible for promotion, whether that is as champions or to enter the playoffs.

Not according to the new National League rules as published by a fan on Twitter.

Here's an interesting (albeit unlikely) scenario ...... Darlo win all remaining 4 matches and have a mathematical possibility of finishing as champions, depending on results from other teams in the top 7. Promoted or not?

No - 500 seats is needed to be eligible for promotion, whether that is as champions or to enter the playoffs.

Not according to the new National League rules as published by a fan on Twitter.

And why would there be anymore trust in a new board who'd have to start things from scratch?

I haven't advocated wanting a new board anywhere. But to at least begin to regain my trust, I feel that they need to firstly apologise for their error (and it is theirs) and then explain why it happened, and how they will ensure it doesn't happen again.

This, "they are volunteers so you can't criticise" line looks very flimsy when the current board is more than willing to criticise the former volunteers who were running the club in their statement. Hypocrisy much. But none of you who trot out that line have addressed that once yet.

Additionally, I can see absolutely no substance at all in their allegations against the previous board, when it seems most people agree that theey did a strong job at balancing the clubs finances and planning the first stages of the move to Blackwell.

And why would there be anymore trust in a new board who'd have to start things from scratch?

I haven't advocated wanting a new board anywhere. But to at least begin to regain my trust, I feel that they need to firstly apologise for their error (and it is theirs) and then explain why it happened, and how they will ensure it doesn't happen again.

This, "they are volunteers so you can't criticise" line looks very flimsy when the current board is more than willing to criticise the former volunteers who were running the club in their statement. Hypocrisy much. But none of you who trot out that line have addressed that once yet.

Additionally, I can see absolutely no substance at all in their allegations against the previous board, when it seems most people agree that theey did a strong job at balancing the clubs finances and planning the first stages of the move to Blackwell.

Additionally, I can see absolutely no substance at all in their allegations against the previous board, when it seems most people agree that theey did a strong job at balancing the clubs finances and planning the first stages of the move to Blackwell.

Have the football club board alleged anything about previous FC board members? I don't remember reading that in the statement, although I may be wrong

And why would there be anymore trust in a new board who'd have to start things from scratch?

I haven't advocated wanting a new board anywhere. But to at least begin to regain my trust, I feel that they need to firstly apologise for their error (and it is theirs) and then explain why it happened, and how they will ensure it doesn't happen again.

This, "they are volunteers so you can't criticise" line looks very flimsy when the current board is more than willing to criticise the former volunteers who were running the club in their statement. Hypocrisy much. But none of you who trot out that line have addressed that once yet.

Additionally, I can see absolutely no substance at all in their allegations against the previous board, when it seems most people agree that theey did a strong job at balancing the clubs finances and planning the first stages of the move to Blackwell.

So, the board should say sorry BEFORE the appeal is heard?

Dear me.......

Because that is the reason they haven't apologised....and put out a statement listing the reasons why it isn't their fault but others. Keep burying your head in the sand all you want.

Here's an interesting (albeit unlikely) scenario ...... Darlo win all remaining 4 matches and have a mathematical possibility of finishing as champions, depending on results from other teams in the top 7. Promoted or not?

No - 500 seats is needed to be eligible for promotion, whether that is as champions or to enter the playoffs.

Not according to the new National League rules as published by a fan on Twitter.

These are the rules so whoever posted that is wrong..."Promotion and promotion play-offs: To qualify for promotion to the National League by winning the respective NORTH/SOUTH Championship and for the club to participate in the promotion play off matches, the ground must achieve a Category “B” Grading together with 500 seats under cover by 31st March in each season. These seats may be in two stands, with no stand having less than 100 seats."

Additionally, I can see absolutely no substance at all in their allegations against the previous board, when it seems most people agree that theey did a strong job at balancing the clubs finances and planning the first stages of the move to Blackwell.

Have the football club board alleged anything about previous FC board members? I don't remember reading that in the statement, although I may be wrong

Sorry, was referring to the Supporters Group statement. Particularly this: "The move to Blackwell Meadows cost considerably more than originally budgeted for and required additional Football Stadia Improvement Funding grants. The current directors inherited this situation."

Any idea who presides over the appeal? Needs to be independent, otherwise the club will clearly be prejudiced. Hope we've got sufficient budget to take legal advice!

There's always the potential for loopholes - did proper consultation take place prior to the rule changes, did they notify clubs 'at risk', is it appropriate to have one rule for first place and another for 2nd - 5th place teams?

Life often rewards those who won't give up regardless of the challenges.

Any idea who presides over the appeal? Needs to be independent, otherwise the club will clearly be prejudiced. Hope we've got sufficient budget to take legal advice! There's always the potential for loopholes - did proper consultation take place prior to the rule changes, did they notify clubs 'at risk', is the appropriate to have one rule for first place and another for 2nd - 5th place teams. Life often rewards those who won't give up regardless of the challenges.

Changes about timing for having sufficient infrastructure / seating in place

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well season 2014/2015 you had to have everything in place by 31st March and no Temp Seating allowed.

I may have missed something but no change has occurred.

North Ferriby were alleged to have only 2,700 capacity but the club have checked with them and it is incorrect hence how they were allowed to be in the play offs and be promoted because it was above 3,000 capacity.

Truro is another possible anomaly, however no one has shown any evidence yet that they had less than 500 permanent seats. I tried searching but couldn't find anything.

The only evidence found is Eastwood Town who had over 500 seats but in 3 stands (has to be in 2) and were not allowed in play offs due to this. They appealed and were rejected.

Additionally, I can see absolutely no substance at all in their allegations against the previous board, when it seems most people agree that theey did a strong job at balancing the clubs finances and planning the first stages of the move to Blackwell.

Have the football club board alleged anything about previous FC board members? I don't remember reading that in the statement, although I may be wrong

Sorry, was referring to the Supporters Group statement. Particularly this: "The move to Blackwell Meadows cost considerably more than originally budgeted for and required additional Football Stadia Improvement Funding grants. The current directors inherited this situation."

Oh right. I wouldn't personally read that particularly as an attack on the previous FC board - it's a statement of fact if the previous board underbudgeted (which seems to happen all the time in stadium building!). It is irrelevant as to why the mistake about the ground regulations was made by the current board, and didn't really need to be in a statement about this issue I don't think.

Any idea who presides over the appeal? Needs to be independent, otherwise the club will clearly be prejudiced. Hope we've got sufficient budget to take legal advice!

There's always the potential for loopholes - did proper consultation take place prior to the rule changes, did they notify clubs 'at risk', is it appropriate to have one rule for first place and another for 2nd - 5th place teams?

Life often rewards those who won't give up regardless of the challenges.

I wonder if the decision makers at the club, would wish the appeal to even be successful?

I'm picking up the feeling that they think promotion would be a step too far.

I'd love to see how they go about it, how seriously they put it together.

_________________Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Additionally, I can see absolutely no substance at all in their allegations against the previous board, when it seems most people agree that theey did a strong job at balancing the clubs finances and planning the first stages of the move to Blackwell.

There was a circa £48,000 hole in funds which were meant to be protected and needed to be re-raised from fans. It was also clearly acknowledged within the last accounts that finance controls had been circumvented and financial situation was literally "out of control".

As you say the previous board did a great job well except if what Les has discovered is true and the rule change came in 2008 then the previous board and architects handed over plans for a ground which didn't actually meet its billing. The current board delivered on previous plans remember.

Changes about timing for having sufficient infrastructure / seating in place

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well season 2014/2015 you had to have everything in place by 31st March and no Temp Seating allowed.

I may have missed something but no change has occurred.

North Ferriby were alleged to have only 2,700 capacity but the club have checked with them and it is incorrect hence how they were allowed to be in the play offs and be promoted because it was above 3,000 capacity.

Truro is another possible anomaly, however no one has shown any evidence yet that they had less than 500 permanent seats. I tried searching but couldn't find anything.

The only evidence found is Eastwood Town who had over 500 seats but in 3 stands (has to be in 2) and were not allowed in play offs due to this. They appealed and were rejected.

This is the best I have found so far on the Truro seating situation..

"The difficulty now is the club’s home, Treyew Road. Normally a club is given two years to get the facilities up to scratch following promotion but Truro’s elevation has been too rapid even for those rules! Modular “Arena” stands have been added, and huge banks of temporary seats to keep the ground graders happy. It was never going to be a satisfactory solution so the club are on the move."

"The FA National Ground Grading Criteria requires clubs at Step 2 to have 250 seats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the National League requires Step 2 clubs to have 500 seats to be eligible to participate in the “play-offs”, the additional 250 seats would not be eligible unless there was a demonstrable need in terms of average attendance."

That to me suggests help for 250 seats (that is, the cat B requirement), but no more than that (without demonstrable need), at step 2. Which makes the 500 seats needed for promotion quite unfair - which perhaps is the basis of our appeal.

This could be why the club are playing it from the "we didn't have the money for 500 seats" angle. If they couldn't afford 500 seats due to a grant only being available up to 250 seats then the league should take that into consideration. Asking clubs to spend money they can't afford despite meeting the regs for the current league could put clubs in financial difficulty.All very well saying reduce the playing budget to help pay for the stand but if it really is £150k to double the size of the current stand then thats probably all of our playing budget out of the window.

As you say the previous board did a great job well except if what Les has discovered is true and the rule change came in 2008 then the previous board and architects handed over plans for a ground which didn't actually meet its billing. The current board delivered on previous plans remember.

That's a fair point, although doesn't tally with the club's statement about a May 2016 rule change.

I can find no articles whatsoever to say that there was even a question mark on Truro playing in the playoffs.

Seen plenty to say they have temp seating but you can't believe everything on the internet, the football ground guides etc. can still get it wrong as proven by the North Ferriby situation.

At the moment we have no grounds for appeal, other than saying we didn't have enough time/money to get sorted and we didn't know the rules. From our past experience with leagues/FA, I can't see us winning.

Additionally, I can see absolutely no substance at all in their allegations against the previous board, when it seems most people agree that theey did a strong job at balancing the clubs finances and planning the first stages of the move to Blackwell.

There was a circa £48,000 hole in funds which were meant to be protected and needed to be re-raised from fans. It was also clearly acknowledged within the last accounts that finance controls had been circumvented and financial situation was literally "out of control".

As you say the previous board did a great job well except if what Les has discovered is true and the rule change came in 2008 then the previous board and architects handed over plans for a ground which didn't actually meet its billing. The current board delivered on previous plans remember.

Happy to be proved wrong on that one Lo, I see no glory in being right and the club have advised that the rules changed in May 2016 so they should know more than me. Hopefully they can explain it on Friday next week and we can all understand it.

I don't think the rule changed about temp structure in 2008, somewhere between 2009-2013 if you go off the documents.

Work is under way to enable the club to compete in the play offs, if they finish between second and fifth. The work, entails the construction of a 250 seat covered stand, will be completed by the National League's deadly of next Thursday, March 31.

The club statement added: "Let's not forget that these are exciting times for Truro City on the pitch as well. By the middle of May, we will know which league the club will be playing in next season and at that point our attention will turn to the resources required for next year.